[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729194]Could you rephrase this? I don't understand.[/QUOTE]
Woops, was supposed to be quoting your quoting yourself.
You want to say because the universe could have been created last thursday, or because we might live in the Matrix, or because we have to trust our sense aren't collectively wrong, that science and empirical thinking can never really find absolutely truth, so any other method should be equally as valid.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;49729290]Woops, was supposed to be quoting your quoting yourself.
You want to say because the universe could have been created last thursday, or because we might live in the Matrix, or because we have to trust our sense aren't collectively wrong, that science and empirical thinking (1)[B]can never really find absolutely truth[/B], so (2)[B]any other method should be equally as valid[/B].[/QUOTE]
1. No. I am fully confident and comfortable with the claim that science can find absolute truth. I am saying that there are SOME truths that are conceptually inaccessible to scientific inquiry.
2. No. I am saying that certain other methods exist as well which can reach the answers that science is just not structurally capable of responding to.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729285]He's saying that those can't be proven by the scientific method, not that they shouldn't be believed.
That's the whole point.
If the scientific method were the ONLY way to know truth, THEN mathematics would be crumbling at its foundation. Our entire argument is that the scientific method isn't the only way to know truth.[/QUOTE]
Observation - Need to solve problem
Question - How do we solve problem
Hypothesis - Mathematical formulae
Experiment - Do formula
Conclusion - Formula solves problem
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729247]You're confusing epistemology and ontology.
Epistemologically, everything is subjective, but my question is about ontology. I'm asking whether justice exists objectively or not. It's a question that cannot be answered one way or the other by science unless you start with the assumption that everything not provable by science doesn't exist. (verificationism or logical positivism)
The hate for philosophy in new-atheism really is ironic because they are often the most prone to basic philosophical mistakes.[/QUOTE]
The entire concept of justice is subjective. There is no objective way to prove or disprove it and thus it is subjective. The mere fact that justice is not one definable [I]thing[/I], and that it exists on a level of abstraction, plainly shows that it is not objectively definable.
[QUOTE=phygon;49729395]The entire concept of justice is subjective. There is no objective way to prove or disprove it and thus it is subjective. The mere fact that justice is not one definable [I]thing[/I], and that it exists on a level of abstraction, plainly shows that it is not objectively definable.[/QUOTE]
There exists some right and/or wrong way to punish a crime. This is a seemingly objective statement that all people will agree with to the same level as people agreeing that the outside world exists.
Note that I'm not talking about how best to put justice into effect, but that justice exists at all.
[QUOTE] There is no objective way to prove or disprove it and thus it is subjective.[/QUOTE]
There is no purely objective way to prove or disprove anything. All truth is known through every individual's subjective lense.
You're confusing epistemology and ontology again.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729463]this is a seemingly objective statement that all people will agree with to the same level as people agreeing that the outside world exists.[/quote]
back up this opinion
[QUOTE=phygon;49729545]back up this opinion[/QUOTE]
It's common sense dude, come on. Every society ever has had an idea of justice. The evidence clearly is on my side.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729549]It's common sense dude, come on. Every society ever has had an idea of justice. The evidence clearly is on my side.[/QUOTE]
So you're telling me that you can't back up your opinion.
Because "people do it often" does not mean that it's objective truth.
Nobody is arguing that justice exists as a theoretical concept, I'm arguing that there is no "true" form of justice because justice is an abstraction of an abstraction of an abstraction used to solve a problem, not a universal truth.
[editline]s[/editline]
This is evidenced by the fact that people used to have justice delivered onto them by being dragged infront of a giant rock with laws on it and then executed if the rock said so, and they believed that this was true justice.
[QUOTE=phygon;49729573]So you're telling me that you can't back up your opinion.
Because "people do it often" does not mean that it's objective truth.
Nobody is arguing that justice exists as a theoretical concept, I'm arguing that there is no "true" form of justice because justice is an abstraction of an abstraction of an abstraction used to solve a problem, not a universal truth.[/QUOTE]
Let me ask the question another way: Do you believe it's possible to make true or false statements about justice?
People all having the same conclusion can be explained by other things than justice existing in some non corporeal form as an objective truth.
Justice, and the existence of it may very well come from some of the absolute most basic tenants of society. Or it may just be a thing that objectively exists. I find the latter hard to rationalize as justice itself manifesting just because it's a real thing seems scant to me.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729549]It's common sense dude, come on. Every society ever has had an idea of justice. The evidence clearly is on my side.[/QUOTE]
The universe does not seem to have a sense of justice, justice is a human (Though Dawkins proposes it is an evolved social trait) concept.
[editline]12th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729587]Let me ask the question another way: Do you believe it's possible to make true or false statements about justice?[/QUOTE]
Subjectively, yes.
I think capitol punishment is morally wrong, that is my subjective opinion. But in the grand scheme of things the universe doesn't appear to care about justice. That or it is a very twisted and cruel one.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729549]It's common sense dude, come on. Every society ever has had an idea of justice. The evidence clearly is on my side.[/QUOTE]
Justice is just "this is the way we should treat people," it's not some thing that exists separately from humanity. It's a part of humanity. So of course it exists, but why would that be independent from the scientific method? Justice isn't some "truth independent from Science" any more than language is. And it's certainly not objective because almost every society has a different idea of it.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;49729592]Subjectively, yes.[/QUOTE]
Give me an example, please.
[QUOTE]
HumanAbyss's Avatar
March 2009
22,624 Posts
Steam Profile YouTube Channel Last.FM Profile XBox Live Profile Playstation Network Profile
People all having the same conclusion can be explained by other things than justice existing in some non corporeal form as an objective truth.
Justice, and the existence of it may very well come from some of the absolute most basic tenants of society. Or it may just be a thing that objectively exists. I find the latter hard to rationalize as justice itself manifesting just because it's a real thing seems scant to me.[/QUOTE]
Do you think that a person can rationally have that belief?
[QUOTE]This is evidenced by the fact that people used to have justice delivered onto them by being dragged infront of a giant rock with laws on it and then executed if the rock said so, and they believed that this was true justice.[/QUOTE]
People have also done science wrong in the past, does that mean that science doesn't exist?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729587]Let me ask the question another way: Do you believe it's possible to make true or false statements about justice?[/QUOTE]
Subjective ones, yes
Objective ones? Hell no.
Shit, think about it this way. If you were someone in India who slaughtered thousands of cows, I'm sure that more than a few people would want your head (probably zealots, but play along with in your mind because this is an analogy). Does this mean that, because they believe you should be killed, you deserve death for killing those cows?
As westerners, our obvious answer would be "fuck no", which goes to show how subjective punishment, retribution, and justice are.
[QUOTE=phygon;49729643]Subjective ones, yes
Objective ones? Hell no.
Shit, think about it this way. If you were someone in India who slaughtered thousands of cows, I'm sure that more than a few people would want your head (probably zealots, but play along with in your mind because this is an analogy). Does this mean that, because they believe you should be killed, you deserve death for killing those cows?
As westerners, our obvious answer would be "fuck no", which goes to show how subjective punishment, retribution, and justice are.[/QUOTE]
Please, PLEASE, learn the difference between ontology and epistemology. You are continually confusing the two. Just because people don't know the truth of something doesn't mean there is no truth to know.
Justice, as in the impulse to punish other people for perceived wrongdoing, is a common trait of nearly all human beings.
Exactly what things they believe count as "wrongdoing", and how they express that feeling, varies from person to person.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;49729628]Justice is just "this is the way we should treat people," it's not some thing that exists separately from humanity. It's a part of humanity. So of course it exists, but why would that be independent from the scientific method? Justice isn't some "truth independent from Science" any more than language is. And it's certainly not objective because almost every society has a different idea of it.[/QUOTE]
The idea that there are right and wrong ways to punish a criminal is objective across all cultures and societies.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729651]Please, PLEASE, learn the difference between ontology and epistemology. You are continually confusing the two. Just because people don't know the truth of something doesn't mean there is no truth to know.[/QUOTE]
I'm not confusing anything, you're just responding with "obviously you are stupid and don't know what you're talking about" when presented with valid points. Justice is not objective because it is inherently abstract.
[editline]13th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729667]The idea that there are right and wrong ways to punish a criminal is objective across all cultures and societies.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but that doesn't mean that there IS a truth. That doesn't mean that there is a true form of justice above and beyond the perception of man. The [I]assumption[/I] that true forms exist that plato made doesn't even remotely begin to hold up to scrutiny, it's just a guess. An idea.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729630]Give me an example, please.
Do you think that a person can rationally have that belief?
People have also done science wrong in the past, does that mean that science doesn't exist?[/QUOTE]
Well when you say "justice can be done wrong" you're implicitly stating it can be done right, which means taking a subjective version of justice and agreeing with it above others, making justice subjective and its existence is no longer assured. If you had just said "that's a version of it" then your argument would be stronger.
As it is, with justice clearly being subjective, it's existence itself isn't an objective fact but a result of people being likely to want what other people have, justice being a form of carrying that out in society.
Justice is too vague to be an objective concept. It's purely human.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49729683]Justice is too vague to be an objective concept. It's purely human.[/QUOTE]
... but it's not vague at all! It simply means that there exists a right and wrong way to treat someone or something. It makes no claims to what those right and wrong ways are.
It's similar to saying that logic exists. The fact that TONS of humans use logic incorrectly says literally nothing about whether logic exists or not.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729727]... but it's not vague at all! It simply means that there exists a right and wrong way to treat someone or something. It makes no claims to what those right and wrong ways are.
It's similar to saying that logic exists. The fact that TONS of humans use logic incorrectly says literally nothing about whether logic exists or not.[/QUOTE]
Which implies right or wrong
which implies a whole bunch of other equally "Feely" based things which I honestly can't say are objective
they're purely a result of the human condition
If we take justice as an extension of "Things happen as they ought to" then perhaps it isn't purely subjective.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49729736]Which implies right or wrong[/QUOTE]
The human experience implies right and wrong. You can't separate moral sense from the human experience any more than you can separate physical senses.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729745]If we take justice as an extension of "Things happen as they ought to" then perhaps it isn't purely subjective.[/QUOTE]
then we have a history full of things we'd call "Injustice" in a modern context and we'd have to re-evaluate what we call justice now, which I'm all for, it's just going to become a much worse way of doing things for the average folk.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49729754]then we have a history full of things we'd call "Injustice" in a modern context and we'd have to re-evaluate what we call justice now, which I'm all for, it's just going to become a much worse way of doing things for the average folk.[/QUOTE]
This comes back to (euthyphro's problem + Problem of evil) of whether morality is as defined by the highest being or if it is a system all on its own. Can the existence of suffering be compatible with justice?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49729748]The human experience implies right and wrong. You can't separate moral sense from the human experience any more than you can separate physical senses.[/QUOTE]
Arguable.
The human experience of say, a savannah gatherer, right and wrong are vastly different than what they are now. Right and wrong, being indicators of best choices regarding thousands of variables, are going to be contextual, not objective.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49729782]Arguable.
The human experience of say, a savannah gatherer, right and wrong are vastly different than what they are now. Right and wrong, being indicators of best choices regarding thousands of variables, are going to be contextual, not objective.[/QUOTE]
The exact same thing would apply to physical senses. Every person sees differently, smells differently, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that those things really do exist in one specific way or another. The fact that all the different people see them helps to confirm it, even if they see it differently.
Every person has a subjective experience about objective things.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49729778]This comes back to (euthyphro's problem + Problem of evil) of whether morality is as defined by the highest being or if it is a system all on its own. Can the existence of suffering be compatible with justice?[/QUOTE]
Both concepts just exist. They aren't dependent on each other.
If justice is determined by the "Highest being" then anything unjust is self explained by that metric. If justice is just a system that exists independent of us, then what is it? What defines it or gives it shape? Nothing. And in that case, what value does it have? None. It becomes the same as if there is no justice, just what we apply as justice.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49729782]Arguable.
The human experience of say, a savannah gatherer, right and wrong are vastly different than what they are now. Right and wrong, being indicators of best choices regarding thousands of variables, are going to be contextual, not objective.[/QUOTE]
All else being equal, it seems to be good is to have more structural complexity - to fight against entropy.
I feel bad for people that hear what sophists say and take it face value because they don't have the background to argue with them
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
